Issue 26081 - projects' documents & files new since last upgrade require cookies
Summary: projects' documents & files new since last upgrade require cookies
Status: CLOSED NOT_AN_OOO_ISSUE
Alias: None
Product: Infrastructure
Classification: Infrastructure
Component: Website general issues (show other issues)
Version: current
Hardware: All All
: P3 Trivial (vote)
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: diane
QA Contact: issues@www
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2004-03-03 15:57 UTC by diane
Modified: 2005-08-01 14:56 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Issue Type: DEFECT
Latest Confirmation in: ---
Developer Difficulty: ---


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this issue.
Description diane 2004-03-03 15:57:02 UTC
Project files updated or added to the projects' documents and files sections
since the last hdwr upgrade where the site was down for a couple of days (i
think this is the timing, but i may be wrong) are not accessible. If you click
on links to these files, they are redirected several times until a failure
occurs due to too many redirects. My browser info was grabbed automatically, is
shown below (in bug cgi form) and is correct. Files attached prior to the
upgrade are accessible. This can be seen best at the bizdev project, where the
two earliest (datestamps) files are accessible, and all others are not. It is
also visible at the qa project, where ja's statistic file, which is updated
regularly, is not accessible, but others listed there are obtainable. Because it
is visible at two projects, I am assuming that the issue is site wide.
Comment 1 diane 2004-03-03 16:02:58 UTC
Does the auto-detected browser info really show somewhere on this issue? I
cannot see it anywhere. I am running mozilla 1.2.1 on rh9 linux.
Comment 2 lsuarezpotts 2004-03-06 07:18:14 UTC
Diane,
Before I forward this to CollabNet support... are you still experiencing the issue?

louis
Comment 3 diane 2004-03-06 14:22:39 UTC
Hi Louis,

I am. But I tested a bit further and learned that the newer files require
cookies to view, but the older files do not. If cookies are accepted, all works
as expected. If cookies are not enabled, it works as described in my first entry
on this report. Kinda interesting. Hadn't picked up on this earlier.

Diane
Comment 4 diane 2004-03-06 17:38:28 UTC
Changed the summary. Not sure which upgrade caused the change, but suspect it
was one of them, without digging into an actual border in the file datestamps
between files that work and files that do not, so made that part more generic.
Also changed definition of behaviour from "not accessible" to "require cookies".

Many folks surf the internet with cookies disabled. I am one of them. I run into
folks that need this clue to edit issues too. Enabling cookies for sites is
sorta treated like "special handling" for many surfers. I think it is likely
that more folks would browse the files & documents, if cookies were not
required. I also think that browsing the site should be encouraged as much as
possible. 

I would like to suggest that cookies not be required for viewing or download of
project files. In some places, such as the issue tracker, or places where viewer
input is used, it is understandable why cookies might be required. But to only
view pages, it feels more like a tracking mechanism than a necessary tool. If
you have ever surfed with cookies enabled and no cookie manager you would very
soon understand why cookies are viewed this way.
Comment 5 lsuarezpotts 2004-03-07 20:54:00 UTC
Diane
Hm. My understanding is that for the interactive elements of sourcecast (eg, file downloads) to operate 
as expected cookies must be enabled.  We understand that many surf with cookies disabled; but early 
on in OOo's history, it was decided that requiring cookies was acceptable.  The cookies are more than a 
tracking mechanism--I for instance, don't track via cookies at all.  They are, rather, a sort of shibboleth 
that allows us to build the site for both members and not.  Unfortunately, all things like the downloads, 
etc., are now in the members' category, and it would be difficult to move them out.
louis
Comment 6 diane 2004-03-07 21:15:43 UTC
fair enough. looks like i no longer have power to close this issue as invalid,
or i would.
Comment 7 lsuarezpotts 2004-03-07 22:04:47 UTC
hm. maybe you should also ask for content developer privs in qa?
anyway, resolving it for you,
Louis
Comment 8 diane 2005-08-01 14:56:35 UTC
closing resolved (invalid) issue.